The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1887-11-29

government should control the telegraph,
just as it does the mails. Ii 1t is wrong to
do the former it is equally unjust in the in
stance Of the latter. Suppose our mail ser
vice was in the hands OF a single gigantic
corporation and that postage rates were ten
times what they now are, would the Star
think that it would be oppressive to divert
this individual enterprise into the hands OF
the general government.
But our esteemed contemporary seems to
think that the idea is TO take by force, and
without adequate compensation, the ma
chinery Of the present telegraph corpora
tions, and turn it over to the government, or
that if paid for, adequate compensation
would mean outrageous jobbery. 1t goes on
to ask chow the United States is to start its
telegraph without either buying out the mo-
nopolies it talks about, or compromising
them for their property in franchises and ap-
planes which government competition
would render valueless."
In the first place, there is no necessity
whatever of buying out the present monop-
oily, if it does not want to sell, and if it does
want to sell and asks an eXhorbitant price
there is no reason why it should be given.
The government is well able to establish
thorough system Of its own, irrespective of
existing systems. In the second place, if
the government established such a system,
there would be no cause to compensate any
body for franchises and appliances rendered
valuelcss. Each system could stand on its
own bottom, and no corporation would be
deprived of any franchise or privilege that
it now has. 1t would be question of the
survival of the fittest, or by proper manage
ment there would be room for beth
The main idea is to give the people of the
country the benefit of low telegraph rates,
it makes no difference how it is done. If
the present telegraph systems will not do it,
then the government must interfere.
The Tax on Tobacco.
l. is said that some of the tobacco manu-
facturers are opposed to the repeal of the
tax on tobacco on the ground that such re-
peal will 90 away with that portion Of the
law which prescribes the size of the pack
age and render useless certain costly ma
chinery now required to comply with the
law.
The manufacturers say, moreover, that
the repeal will throw some men out of en-
ployment.
But the point of the whole matter is that
the repeal of the tax will break up what is
now practically monopoly by enabling
manufacturers with small capital to go into
the business, and by giving poor men an OPP
,portunity to compete with the great manu-
facturers.
There are several good reasons why the
tax should be repealed, and not single
plausible argument in favor of its retention.
In the first place, the tax falls ON the poor
er classes. It is all very we'll for the re-
formers and cranks to say that tobacco is q
luxury that can be dispensed with. AS a
matter of fact, it is a necessity.
In the second place, if tobacco were a
luxury, it is one that is enjoyed by the poor,
and the tax that goes to the government,
which doesn't need it, is just as good money
as If tobacco were necessity.
In the third place, the tax on tobacco is a
tax on an agricultural PRODUCT product
that is just as important to those who make
a business of growing it as cotton is to the
southern planter, or as wheat is to the wcs-
tern farmer.
In the fourth place, the law under which
the tax is collected, operates to embarrass
small growers who live away from the cen
tral markets. To put it briefly, the tax is
embarrassing and unnecessary, and there
fore bad.